Talk:Origin of the Azerbaijanis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Iran Origin of the Azerbaijanis is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] !

Didnt the DNA test put this to rest. Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab did a test that proves the the iranian azeri are similar to all iranians. this topic is done no matter what the turks say!!

Hot damn, you know there must've been been some heated arguments in the other articles when you stumble upon an entire article on this topic. To make an analogy, it would be like buying a comb that says "do not eat". You read that warning and know that something really interesting must've happened that they wrote it. --Bobak 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.111.15 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everyone knows about this article...Khosrow II 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just asked my coworker, girlfriend and mom and they hadn't... my mom didn't even know that there was a think called Wikipedia and only has a shaky understanding of the "internet" ;-) --Bobak 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused. You think the general public should know more about this article or other Wikipedians?Khosrow II 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I now see it was a failed attempt at being light-hearted :-( --Bobak 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Im so confused. LOL :DKhosrow II 14:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this what they teach in Iran ?

Is this what they teach in Iran ? Azeris are not Turks but Persian. Kurds are not Kurds, but Persians.--BlueEyedCat 10:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BlueEyedCat 10:29, 14 December 2006; Yep, they also teach us that the great Iran is from China to Europe and all those who speak Farsi or have been a part of Iranian/Persian civilisation (and are proud of being a part of that civilisation) are Persians/Iranians! You have a problem with this? Why? Do you have any idea how many people speak Farsi in the region (including India, Pakistan and even China) today? Kiumars 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

this is not science or history, this is racist and imperialistic propoganda of Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.127.158 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a POV about Iranian Theory

I don't think we can put POV's as an article to wikipedia. Wikipedia is for facts and POVs doesn't belong to here. Therefore I suggest we delete this article--Ogulsev 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Once they've just started a great campaign in Persian web sites and forums to insert this POV to Wikipedia. This article must be deleted. You can search it in www.bia2.com --BlueEyedCat 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, can you prove anything in the article as not correct? No you cant, so I suggest you leave it alone. Facts are facts and most of the time facts do not support your pan Turkist view. Oh yea, and just to let you know, Turks did not originate in Turkey, have not been living in the Middle East for 8000 years, and ARE MONGOLOID! Do you look like the real Turks in Chinese Turkestan or the other Central Asian countries? No, infact, you are more Iranian, Anatolia, Armenian, or Greek than Turk! Genetics have proven it.Azerbaijani 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article should be deleted! why because they distort the facts and citations! look just what they have done in citation 14: they took it from the context and stated as a citation but what that citation is really: "After a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestan (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmanchay; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçivan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran." and they stated that as if this citation is saying that Azerbaijanis in north and south are different. I edited it and i appeal to Wikipedia: this article should be deleted because citations are distorted. that is I found one.Elsanaturk 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again distortion and distortion. look what they had written "Strabo mentions that the people of Iranian Azarbaijan as Iranians who spoke Persian".(I deleted it) In Strabo's time there were no Iran, no Iranian Azerbaijan and no Persian. there were Persia, Atropatena and old Persian. this obvious mistakes show that this article should be deleted.Elsanaturk 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is definitely POV, shouldn't be there

The article is trying to make a "conclusion" that Iranian Azeris do not have the same genetic mix whatsoever with Northern Azerbaijanis and that Iranian Azeris have almost nothing to do with being Turks.

I think some of these issues need some serious considering and editing by some independent-mided people. Wikipedia is not for the purpose of promoting Persian/Aryan/Iranian genetic/race idealogy. The references in the article DO NOT point to that conclusion. Of course Azeris are mixed with various peoples and it is for sure that Azeris are mixed with Persians, simply because of mixed marriages and also becasue of the land proximity. What has that got to do with the rest? These are obvious issues. In Switzerland for example ehe German-speakers and the French-speakers are definitely more similar genetically speaking than Swiss Germans and Hamburg Germans. What does that have to do with anything else? No matter what Germans are Germans, and only Germans (ethnic Germans) decide whether they are Germans or not. And Farsi people DO NOT decide what genetic mixes Luri, Kurdi or Azeri people have so that they relate them to themselves.

This is one of the old Persian chauvinistic policies of assimilation started by the Pahlavi regime and pursuied by the Islamists (who shamelessly supported Christian Armenia in the conflict with Shia Muslim Azerbaijan) to make ALL Iranian citizens believe that there is only one PURE and REAL race and that is the Iranian/Aryan race. This especially targeted Iran's 25% or so Azeri population. Iranian authorities have been feeding the Azeri population with propoganda that Azeris should not speak Turkic, and it is some sort of a sin that they Speak Turkic because they have been Turkified "forcefully". AND THEY NEED FORCEFUL PERSIANIFICATION NOW... As stupid as it looks, this has been the policy in Iran for over 80 years.Bm79 08:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia NPOV before you make edits.Azerbaijani 16:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can people please stay with the facts, not just state political agenda with no reality. The article had mentioned FACTS that some removed!!!, The study that had ben done by an Iranian Azeri in Iran who had done genetic test that proved that Azeris, not only do not have a Turkic gene but it resembles more to persians. Although thats one study, please use facts not just accusations with no base. I myslef am an "Iranian Azeri" and would like nothing more then to know my heritage however unless you prove facts bud out.

The only proof of the so called discrimination is from a raciest cartoon drawing that was done by...*drum roll* an Azeri. To say it doesnt exsist is untrue at best it rivals the anglo-franco relationship in Canada

PEOPLE FROM the REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN SHOULD NOT COMMENT they only have an agenda that is aimed at increasing their land!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.211.138 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this theory scientific?

Turks in Turkey are not related to Turks in Central Asia. They belong to Caucasia race. OK. Iranian people also Caucasia race. OK. Azeris in Iran are also Iranian, so they also belong to Caucasia race. OK All of them belong to Caucasia race. Therefore, how can one claim Turks in Turkey and Azeris in Iran are not related? A:Persian-Iranian B:Azeri C:Turkish We know C is similar to A. B and A is also similar. Therefore, B and C are also similar.Paparokan 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Paparokan 17:35, 5 February 2007; yes it is the state of the arts of science. It is not that primitive as you try to put it, is this the best you can do? The answer is the Genetic Science! Did you know that a genetic test can tell you what your make up is? You may not like it but that is the fact! People in the west are paying to find who their real parents and ancestors were! And many are shocked by the test results! So, brace yourself for a shock! It is a scientifically proven test and is being used in prosecuting people who committed crimes 30-40 years ago! Now all we have to do is to sit and watch lies being unfold! Kiumars 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] give up

Dr Mâziâr Ashrafian Bonab (an Azeri himself) has made a relevant DNA study on the Azeris in both Iran and Azerbaijan. His result proved once again that Azeris were no more different than their fellow Northern Iranian neighbours and their Armenian & Georgian neighbours. No traces of a supposedly “Mongolian” marker was found, which concludes that the Azeris are not related to Turcoman nor Eastern Turks. Azeris are close to Persians and are only speaking an Altaic language.

How could people still continue to ignore scientifically facts and spread separatism or pan-Turkism? It’s ridiculous. Azeris are Azeris. period

"The study found that the Azerbaijanis of Iran do not have a similar FSt and other genetic markers found in Anatolian and European Turks. However, the genetic Fst and other genetic traits like MRca and mtDNA of Iranian Azeris were identical to Persians in Iran"Paparokan If European and Anatolian Turks are not related to Azeris in Iran, to whom are they related? For sure, European and Anatolian Turks are not Mongoloid, but they have Caucasian features. All Iranians, also Azeris in the group also have Caucasian features. So, all of them are genetically related. What do you mean by Iranian features? I know only 3 human races: Caucasian, Mongoloid, Black. (Last word: I do not believe in races. All human beings are Homo Sapiens, only difference is their languages and culture, nothing more!)Paparokan 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Paparokan 21:23, 23 February 2007; Uh! And where do you put the red-Indians, Australian aborigines, and Chinese and Japanese and Koreans and other races then? They will kill you if you told them they are the same race! It is so convenient to class people in as little as you want when it suits you, right? But I am afraid you are stuck this time! Kiumars 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think languages and culture is more important than race concept. Also, I don't think that scientist is neutral being an Iranian Azeri.Paparokan 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There we some great points, however at the end regardless of culture, your ancestors decide your past. So as much as some would like to claim their special ethnicity in the end a blood sample will decide it, Azersi kruds and other minority have the same roots as other persians and that is a persian identity...you say no?...do a blood test...ppl lie and change blood test do not, the way you speak, what u eat, can change but your heritage will never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.211.138 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, but If Azeris were so "turkish" how come they didn't join the Ottoman Empire and remained Iranian? How come Azerbaijan is not in Turkey? How come that the Qâjârs were Azeris but considerd as Iranians? How come my Azeri uncles celebrate Noruz with their heart & soul? How come Googoosh sees herself as an Iranian and not azeri, hu? Well, it is simple: It is called the power of culture. The National identity of Iranians consists of Azeris, Persians and Kurds (majority ethnicities). We’ve lived in Peace and harmony for centuries and were blessed with our GREAT culture. Why do you want to break that and create a possible unwanted civil war? Azeris are not separatists, only a few people like yourself who spend all of their free time to promote this radical and crazy idea on the net are! I'm sorry to break your dream but Iranic culture is somehow stronger and Azeris are a part of it, whether you and your separatist friends like it or not! Be proud of that..Sonabona

sonabona, my objection is to the genetics study that Turkish people in Anatolia and Azeris in Iran are not "genetically" related. I think that Turkish are genetically related to Azeris, Persians, Armenians, Greeks, etc since they are neighbours. "We are more Iranian, Anatolia, Armenian, or Greek than Turk!" Paparokan 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The scientist does not control genetic results...If he could, that would make him God wouldnt it? Also, this study was conducted for a major Western University.Azerbaijani 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well at least he proved to you separatists that your opinions lack some scientific grounds. Pan-Turks and pan-turanism want to create a fictional bond with Easter Turks (Oghuz, Khazaks, Uzbeks etc.). This study proved that Azeris have only a linguistic connection as a common marker. Azeris are a part of the Iranian peoples in Eurasia/Caucasia, just like the Gilaks, Mazenderanis, etc. Azeris are certainly not Persians, but Iranians. period

[edit] Expanded Intro

Because of the very subject being POV, the intro of the page, consistent with academic and Wikipedia standards of neutrality, must be NPOV and reflect the pro and contra positions. Currently, the intro not only completely fails to present any contra position, but is full of POV. Consider the current intro, especially what I have placed in Bold and Italics: "The Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis seeks to prove a link between present-day Azeris and their pre-Turkification Iranian past. This theory is supported by historical accounts, the ancient Azari language, present day place names, cultural similarities between Iranian peoples and Azeri's, archaeological evidence, and DNA testing. It is also favoured by some notable scholars and sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and is the only theory with solid evidence supporting it [citation needed]."

The re-worded alternative is IMHO better, as it removes the POV and baseless claims, and balances it out: "The Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis seeks to prove a link between present-day Azerbaijanis and their pre-Turkification Iranian past. The proponents of this theory argue it is supported by historical accounts, by the existence of the ancient Azari language, present day place names, cultural similarities between Iranian peoples and Azerbaijanis, and archaeological evidence. It is also favoured by some notable scholars and sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam [citation needed]. However, this theory is not universally accepted due to the fact that majority of people and states in the region, including Azerbaijanis, before the Iranian incursions in the 7th century B.C. (Encyclopedia Britannica) were of Caucasian and other non-Iranian ethnic stock (reports of Strabo about Caucasian Albania and Iberia, the existence of Urartu and Manna states), the reports on the ancient Azari language are not definitive insofar its usage over the entire Azerbaijani homeland, and cultural and other similarities persist between all people of the region (Azerbaijanis, Persians, Kurds, Georgians, Armenians, Jews, Turks, Arabs, etc.), irrespectible of origin, religion, language and other factors. Moreover, some differences in appearance, dialects, and even DNA make-up are normal for all divided people spanning across large territories, such as is the case with Jews, Arabs, and Armenians of the greater region." This intro is not perfect -- indeed, the whole article is poorly written and needs extensive work -- however, it is better insofar as removing POV and making it more balances, whilst riddig it of unsubstantiated claims about "DNA testing" and "the only (!) theory with solid (!) evidence supporting it" (if it's so solid, then it shouldn't be a theory, but an anxiom). --AdilBaguirov 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil, don't you think it would be better if this info was moved down to the "Opposition" section instead? Is there any reason why it has to be in the intro? Khoikhoi 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's only fair and standard to mention both cases in the intro, before the bulk of the article begins and details are laid out. The page is still, by its very nature and definition, going to feature Iranian POV, hence why should it hurt from including a two lines of opposition? After all, the Intro's are essentially a summary of the entire article, and as such, should include the opposing views as well. Also, the intro, and the article itself, should refrain from such claims as "the only theory with solid evidence supporting it" and weird DNA claims (where's that study? and what are the EXACT findings of it?). --AdilBaguirov 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
While the article itself is complete POV and doesn't withstand a serious discussion, I've expanded the intro to make it at least a little bit NPOV. Having only one POV in the intro is not fair or right, both views, pro and con, should be reflected in the intro, and then elaborated in the rest of the text. --adil 05:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the POV edits by AdilBaguirov. You didnt even discuss such a change and simple edited your POV into the article. You cannot say that this article is POV or incorrect, when every reliable source on the planet agrees with it...Azerbaijani 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean didn't discuss it? Of course I did above. you can't author extreme POV and then try to put those who challenge it on defensive -- it's you who has to defend your claims, your theory as you correctly named it. --adil 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your POV has cannot replace what all of these major encyclopaedia's say. Furthermore, nothing was resolved with the discussion. Your are making changes all by yourself.Azerbaijani 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is "POV" in my text, and what would be NPOV in your versions? What specifically are you opposed to? You can't make warrantless claims, this page is POV enough in its name and very existence. No need to make it more POV. I have NPOV'ed the wording, and added few references to balance the intro. --adil 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

user Azerbaijani, do you know who that IP anon, using a proxy server in Amsterdam, is? The one who doesn't discuss changes and only likes to revert? Because it seems like all edits are appropriate and verifiable, hence should not be reverted, but edited and better wording suggested, brought to a consensus. --adil 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess user Azerbaijani did not know the answer to the question... or maybe did. Anyhow, I've returned the more NPOV version of the article that is otherwise a complete POV. --adil 07:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Adil, I'm once again removing your POV. Do you not see all of the encyclopaedia's listed, which include Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse, and World Book Encyclopedia? Your POV and speculation is not appropriate. Furthermore, almost none of what you added was sourced. And no, I dont know who the anon is.Azerbaijani 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV and OR

Removed unsourced POV and OR writing about the origins of Azerbaijanis. Atabek 00:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted the sourced information you removed, and sourced other statement. Now there should be no problem.Hajji Piruz 02:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian origin

I moved the Caucasian origin information to its own article. I also moved the page to "Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis" as it is more neutral and more sensible, as it isnt really a "theory", its pretty much accepted in the scholarly community. Other than that I made some changes to match the Azerbaijani people article.Hajji Piruz 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pejman47

You just restored the claim that "The Azeris in Iran and the Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan may not be the same people ethnically, however, only have a linguistic and religious bond", which is not supported by any sources, including those cited as reference. Ethnicity is not defined by genes, but by the language. You cannot say that all French, Italian or Russian people are genetically uniform, they could be of various descent, but what makes them the same people is the language and culture. Same with Azerbaijanis, so the original research that you restored cannot be a part of a wikipedia article. Grandmaster 06:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move was never disputed!

Page move was never disputed, as you can see in the above section. I am moving the page back. Also, the information in the opposition section is not talking about the same region or the same people. It is referring to the people above the Aras river who are a people of completely separate origin.

See also SwatJesters talk page.Hajji Piruz 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A scientific theory

I read a scientific theory that Greeks, Jordanians, Iranians and Turkish people are all relatives, and Turkish people are not so much related to Middle Asian Turkic peoples. (an antropologist makes the theory using GENETICS) Can I create an article for it in Wiki? (If any theory can be converted into a Wiki article...). This theory disapproves the idea that Iranian and Turkish people are not relatives that is heavily supported in this article.Paparokan (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that all of the neighboring human groups have similarities (Indeed the Kurdish (and Azeri) parts of Turkey are directly and strongly relative to Iranian peoples) .I don't think this article's main goal is to show that Iranians and Turkey's people are not relatives, but in contrast, it shows the fact that today's differences in language are not directly against a common origin. Anyway, I would be glad to know more about your article...
and thank you for the fact that you care!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dbachmann's edit

I changed his edit in this cases:
1-As it has been said in the genetic section,there is doubt about if the Azerbaijanis are ethnically of Oghuz Turks .But there is no doubt about their language to be Oghuz Turkic language,So I changed the lead.
2-No known book or poem of (Nezami) is recognized in Turkish(see the Nezami page),then I delete that part.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Turkic people is a correct definition. Turkic people is a linguistic group, same as Iranian people, Germanic people, Slavic people, etc. Otherwise your edit is correct. And I would like to thank Dbachmann for undertaking the clean-up work, it is really needed. Grandmaster (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that linguistic classification of Azeri's as Turk is correct. But if we say in the lead that "Azeri's are (ethnically) of oghuz people", that may mislead the reader. Historically, the Azeri's have been in the region for a very long time. Looking them as a relatively newcomer (Oghuz) may cause such conflicts like those that has been encountered with the old ethnic groups of the region like the Armenians and the Kurds.More than legitimacy problem , there is the unclearness in definition of the word "Ethnic"  :that is vague! In Azeri that is "Xalq" and in Russian "Етническа група" , but it's unknown if the (western)concept of ethnicity fits the old nations of the old world. Note the difference between "milliyet" and "Xalq"--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "Oghuz Turkic" is "speaking an Oghuz Turkic language". There is simply no other meaningful definition. The Azerbaijani ethnic group has its origins in the 13th to 15th century, by a combination of Turkic and Iranian (and Caucasian) elements. It is pointless to speak of an Azeri ethnicity prior to the 12th century or so, and this article focusses on this period, 12th to 15th centuries, i.e. well after the Oghuz Turks had arrived. At first, there was a mixture of various tribes, and by the 16th century, they had amalgamated into the "Azeri". This is what we mean by "ethnogenesis", and by "Origin of the Azerbaijanis". Genetics has very little to do with it, because genetics reflects the history in terms of tens of millennia, not in terms of the last couple of centuries. dab (𒁳) 10:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so . Azeri and Azerbaijan are at least as old as the Alexander era (3th BC).That's wrong to look at them as only from the 12th to 15th centuries.Azeris are mentioned in many documents of Iran , many centuries before the arrival of the oghuz tribes.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm totally agree with Dbachmann, since the definition is based on linguistics. "Azerbaijani" refers to people of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Iranian Azeris refers to Azeris living in Iran. That's it. The current context and the title of the article does not refer to "History and Origins of the peoples of Azerbaijan" in a geographical sense. On the other hand, your edit is just reflect a pov and distortion of the cited references, since you added "not" into the sourced sentences. For this reason, i'm infavor of reverting to Dbachmann's version. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The definition is obscure. If you know anywhere that gives a definition, please show me. As an example, the ethnic group of "Jews" is a well known and accepted concept, but they have no known linguistic relationship with each other(e.g.: Russian Jew). About your opinion of difference between "Azeri" and "Azerbaijani", I can't find any difference.
    my edition was not a POV! In the first place I myself write that whole section in the previous page, then someone changed my edition , and before my reverting it back to the first edition, the whole page is redirected and I could not change the whole, but the sources clearly shows that the "not" is correct in that place :The first article says in brief that the Azeri of Azerbaijani republic is genetically alike their Armenian neighbors ( Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus )and the second research says the Iranian Azeries are alike their other Iranian neighbors( Is urbanization scrambling the genetic structure of human populations?)(Please read the sources).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
User:E104421 is being dishonest and has double standards. In the articles Hazara people and Iranian peoples, he actually rejects the categorization of the Hazara and Aimaq people people as "Iranian peoples" based on linguistic evidence and instead calls them "Turko-Mongols who speak Persian". In the article Iranian peoples, he actually changed the edits of User:Dbachmann: [1]. See also these edits of E104421, where he removed the words "Persian-speaking" from the article and replaced it with "an ethnic group of Mongolian origin". In here, he suddenly changes his mind and now supports the idea that "Iranian" and "Turkic" are only linguistic classifications. Wikipedia needs standards: if the Azeris and the Turkish people people are categorized as a Turkic peoples (meaning that they are "Turkic" because they speak Turkic languages), then the same standard should be applied to other peoples as well. That means that the leading sentence in Hazara people should say: "The Hazaras are an Iranian people who live in Central Afghanistan". Of course, it is a known fact that Hazaras are predominantly of Mongol origin, as is also a known fact that Azeris and Turks of Turkey are predominantly descendants of the Non-Turkic populations of these regions. But there shouldn't be any double standards only to push some Pan-Turkist POV (as E104421 is doing right now): If Non-Turks speak a Turkic language, then they are Turks. But if Turks speak a Non-Turkic language, they are still Turks. That doesn't work!
Well, that's a good point , but I don't interpret it as that user's "dishonesty". The concept of "ethnicity" is a controversial and vague topic. Indeed in such vague concepts that's the "main stream opinion"," popularly" and "wide spread dominancy" of an idea that dictates the meaning of the concept. My personal understanding about the "Hazara people" is that although they speak an Iranian language, but they can't be included in "Iranic people", but Turkic speaking Azeri's can be counted as of Iranian people: that's because the fact that before the change of their language (from Turko-Mongolian in Hazaras to Persian and from ancient Azeri to Turkic Azeri in Azerbaijanis), their ethno genesis was complete. In many Arabic and Persian texts before arrival of any Turkic language group to the region , there is clear referring to "Azeri's" , "Azerbijee" and similar ethnic names.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That does not work. "Turkic", "Iranic" and "Germanic" are only linguistic designations. The Azeris are a Turkic people. Period! And the Hazaras and Aimaks are an Iranian people. Period. Their more recent origins, their history, genetics, etc should be mentioned in detail in a special section of the article. Just for the information: the "Iranian peoples" are genetically not "Iranian peoples", but descendants of the more ancient, native population of Mesopotamia and the Indus-Valley. They were linguistically "Iranized" in the course of 4000 years of Iranian linguistic domination. Only a very few isolated pockets in the Pamir Mountains still reflect the original Iranian (Indo-European) nomads that conquered the region. See: Iranian_peoples#Indo-European_roots. As a side note: the Azeris and Anatolian Turks were linguistically Turkicized in the last 400 years. The Hazaras, on the other hand, were already Persian-speaking at the time of the Timurids (see the detailed references in the Baburnama). For those who maintain that "Hazaras are Mongols": they should take a look at these pictures: [2][3][4]. That's not my definition of "Mongoloid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.133.122 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, applying new concept of "ethnicity" is impossible to the ethnic groups of the old world. Almost all of the so-called ethnic groups in the old world are genetically different from that origin that is theoretically considered for them by themselves or historians: that is natural! The transportation and other difficulties in the old world dictated such a reality. But anyway, equalizing "language" with "ethnicity", is misleading: can we consider English language Nigerians as "English"? Or then why if the ethnic group and language group are the same, we encounter such terms as "Francophone" and not "French"? "Anglophone" and not "English"?
Although it's interconnected with the "Ethnicity", but "linguistics" is not the basic core of Ethnicity." Ethnicity" can be attributed to both real and hypothetical origin of a group.Considering the records of "Azeri's" before the arrival of the Turkic language groups to the west Asia that is reasonable to count Azeri's as a non-Turkic ethnic group. The new concept of ethnicity (American one) that favors "Race/language" more than "history/culture" is more applicable to the immigrant populations of the western societies than the sedentary and historic groups of the old world.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any other definition of Turkic people other than the people speaking Turkic languages. For example, Britannica gives the following definition of Turkic people:

Turkic peoples - any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. [5]

And then Azerbaijani people:

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [6]

So Azerbaijanis are Turkic people, because they speak a Turkic language. I have never seen any reliable source claiming that Azerbaijanis are not Turkic people. I don't think this is should be a serious issue, it is a generally accepted definition of Turkic peoples, which applies here. And Nizami wrote in Persian, and first poetry in Azerbaijani language dates to the 13th century. Grandmaster (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Any reliable source like Britannica can be used , but it's better to use precautions not to regenerate the generalization errors of this source. By using the Britannica definition of "Azerbaijani", the Tats of Iran and Azerbaijan republic are not "Azerbaijani"!
    More than that, the original conflict was about Dbachmann's sentence:"The Azerbaijanis are a Oghuz Turkic people. Their ethno genesis dates to the High Middle Ages, with early literature in the Azerbaijani language dating to the 12th century Nezami." Almost any part of that sentence is directly against the Britannica:britannica article says:

    The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia.

    Turkic peoples display a great variety of ethnic types[7]

Isn't it clearly against the "The Azerbaijanis are a Oghuz Turkic people" sentence of Dbachmann? and if some of their elements is derived from Caucasia and Media , then how could we introduce them in the lead of article -the most important part- as Oghuz Turkic people? I think we may not use the controversial topics in the lead. There is no doubt that the Turkish Azeri is of Oghuz Turkic languages, and that should be used in the lead, but about the ethnicity lets not get involved to Synthesis original research.Thank you so much.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alborz here. The article is about origin not language and so I think the statement should start with Britannica: "The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia.."(the rest of Britannica),..due to turkification and Turkificization of the region, the Azeris speak a Turkic languange and hence by the definition of Turkic people (a group that speaks Turkic languages), they are classified as a Turkic people. Although usually I do not favor Britannica over primary sources (some of them in the article).
On Azeri-Turkish literature the oldest example is actually not from Azerbaijan but from Khorasan in late 13th and early 14th century. It is from Shaykh Ezz-al-din Esfariyani (known as Hassan Oglu). I have his two poems actually, and both of them would be classified as classical Azeri-Turkish. Then it is Qazi Burhan al-Din (East Anatolia) and Nasimi (from modern Iraq) (14th century). Correct me if I am wrong, but the first person from actual Azerbaijan to have composed in Turkish is Shah Qasim Anvar of Tabriz in the late 14th century, but he spent a lot of time in Khorasan and Timurid court. The bulk of his work (99%) is in Persian. But then he has I believe 12 Ghazals in Turkish (probably Azeri-Turkish type) and two in Gilaki. He also has some Gilaki poems which is much rarer (Virtually no one speaking Azeri knows this language where-as Turkish and Persian were more common), and this make me believe his Turkish is actually the same Azeri-Turkish used by Hassan Oglu from Khorasan and Shah Qasim Anvar composed it in Khorasan. Thus probably the beginning of Azeri-turkish literature in Azerbaijan goes probably back to the Qara Qoyunlu and I think 13th century date applies to the Khorasani Hassan Oglu. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)